Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
In-universe categories Acronyms This may be more appropriate for a list page than a category, but I didn't know where else to suggest it. I looked up "acronym" and there are some articles that say "(abcdefg) was an acronym for (list of terms)". So a category for every phrase more commonly/only known by an acronym or a list (if such a thing doesn't exist)? --LauraCC (talk) 17:53, December 15, 2015 (UTC) :Not yet sure I see the benefit. Examples? -- sulfur (talk) 20:46, December 15, 2015 (UTC) Well, like MACO or TCARS. There's a page for Klingonese with a table list of words and their definitions, even though some of these words have their own pages. --LauraCC (talk) 20:56, December 15, 2015 (UTC) ::There are enough for a cat, as this covers pretty much everything using a "blank" sortkey in starship classifications category, but this mostly covers redirects outside of those, as page titles should be the whole phrase if we know it. Since these are mostly "invisible" in the latter sense, I would support a category for these to make finding them easier. - 03:25, December 16, 2015 (UTC) Some are listed on the starfleet agencies template, but this would help find non-starfleet acronyms too, like CPR etc. --LauraCC (talk) 20:24, December 18, 2015 (UTC) Any more support votes? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, January 8, 2016 (UTC) Genres See movie for the list of genres. --LauraCC (talk) 21:29, January 17, 2016 (UTC) It may be expanded to include book and music genres as well, hence the category. --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 22, 2016 (UTC) Would it go in Arts and music under genres? Or would all genres thus listed be in the "genres" categrory? --LauraCC (talk) 17:31, January 22, 2016 (UTC) Insects Might be useful sub cat of animals. --LauraCC (talk) 21:45, January 17, 2016 (UTC) Though, maybe Category: Invertebrates might work. --LauraCC (talk) 18:59, January 20, 2016 (UTC) Here's the list, User:LauraCC/Insects. --LauraCC (talk) 18:43, January 22, 2016 (UTC) :Fyi, worms aren't insects. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:12, January 24, 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. We could start with "Earth insects" for now until it's clear where other alien species belong. --LauraCC (talk) 17:59, January 26, 2016 (UTC) Markonians Put Unnamed Markonians in this cat. See "Category:R'Kaal" for precedent.--LauraCC (talk) 20:20, January 20, 2016 (UTC) Scientific Occupations A category for all those pages which currently have both the Science and Occupations category, like Quantum theorist, Exobiologist, Biologist etc. Kennelly (talk) 17:13, January 23, 2016 (UTC) Tea Category:Tea as a sub-category to Category:Beverages to get rid of the long list on the tea article and simply link to the category. Tom (talk) 00:04, January 25, 2016 (UTC) : I support that one, and more like it to break up the food. Fruits and Vegetables also comes to mind. --LauraCC (talk) 17:58, January 26, 2016 (UTC) :Also desserts. --LauraCC (talk) 19:21, January 26, 2016 (UTC) :Further, perhaps split alcoholic beverages from others that aren't, like milk. --LauraCC (talk) 20:08, January 27, 2016 (UTC) Gemstones This list might be a good category. -- LauraCC (talk) 20:08, January 27, 2016 (UTC) :Support. And the the list article could be redirected into the category as there is no content but the list. Tom (talk) 10:23, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Production POV categories Collectible companies For pages in both Category:Collectibles and Category:Companies. - 00:31, February 15, 2015 (UTC) :Something we should've had a while ago -- but an optimal solution here would be to break up the company from the product. The company would fall into 'collectible companies', and then have a product page that can be the current 'catalogue' section of each page now fall into the collectibles. -- sulfur (talk) 03:47, February 15, 2015 (UTC) ::I agree. I'm thinking a page for each "product line." For example: Johnny Lightning could be split to Legends of Star Trek (standard releases) and Legends Of Star Trek (White Lightning releases) or just Legends of Star Trek (Johnny Lightning). We could also just have a Johnny Lightning catalog or Johnny Lightning merchandise page, which would might make more sense for pages like Genki Wear and Kraft, which don't have "named product lines," or much of a "line" at all. - 04:29, February 15, 2015 (UTC) ::Support, though a bit tentatively. While the suggestion ties in nicely with that of publishers and books/magazines, I'm a bit concerned with the split application resulting in a large number of additional "stub" pages the Kraft and Genki examples...I like the second subordinate suggestion, but propose Johnny Lightning product lines instead "catalog" or "merchandise". To my ears the latter two would sound too much like commercially "peddling" stuff--Sennim (talk) 11:38, February 16, 2015‎ (UTC) ::Support - I prefer the "... product lines" suggestion as well. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:04, November 12, 2015 (UTC) Highlighting real world families I have noticed families listed from the fictional universe be it Crusher, Picard, Riker. But why no recognition of real world families? Several families have contributed to Trek in the capacity of actors or crew. Westmore, de Lancie, Epper, Roddenberry, Shatner, Nimoy and others have made their mark and have every right to be cited. Wikipedia comports the same courtesy to presidents, senators, scientists, actors, you should follow their suit. -- Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 23:30, January 27, 2016 (UTC) :Oppose. I see no benefit from creating these realworld categories. But good to see that you suggest this here instead of creating the categories without approval for a second time. Tom (talk) 10:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Here are the families Wikipedia cites-Washington, Adams, Roosevelt, Whedon, Coolidge, McCain, Lincoln, Dallas, Polk, the Lee family of Virginia-they run the gamut of military, politics, acting, writing. These are some of the families Wikipedia has cited over the years. Why can't we show the same courtesy to the families who have made their mark here?--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 13:58, January 28, 2016 (UTC) ::There aren't categories for the Crusher and Riker families, only the Picard and Raymond families, and that's because there's a large number of the latter. We don't create categories like this based on "rights" or "courtesy" or what Wikipedia does, we create categories like this based on the numbers. How many of these would have at least 5 pages? - 15:27, January 28, 2016 (UTC) I made a mistake on Crusher and Riker, but when you look at the fact that MULTIPLE members of say the Epper and Westmore families have had involvement in Trek. Michael Westmore has been behind the scenes, MacKenzie Westmore had acted on both TNG and VOY. I can also cite the Shatners, the Roddenberrys. There IS precedent for recognizing the families that have contributed to Trek.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 17:34, January 28, 2016 (UTC) ::How many of these would have at least 5 pages? - 18:38, January 28, 2016 (UTC) :The Roddenberry family would have five, the Westmore family six, the Muñoz family also five. That's all. But we cover information on the page Familial connection#Real life connections. Tom (talk) 18:59, January 28, 2016 (UTC) I took a look at the real life connections and forgot how many Crosbys had roles. So ANOTHER family can be singled out. There can also married couples such as Shannon Cochran and Michael Canavan. I think enough of a case has been made to create a family category.--Jared Paul Baratta (talk) 23:22, January 28, 2016 (UTC) Maintenance categories Split Comic series into subcats One for each corresponding show series it encompasses and one for the Alternate reality? --LauraCC (talk) 20:28, December 15, 2015 (UTC) :Too many fall across shows to have show versions. Perhaps by publisher, but I'm not a big fan of that idea either. :The only one that I don't mind the sound of it alt reality vs prime reality. -- sulfur (talk) 20:45, December 15, 2015 (UTC) I agree. But certain comics such as Star Trek: Countdown (omnibus) would fall into both categories, as some of it takes place in the prime universe's future. Other than that, not a lot of crossover. --LauraCC (talk) 15:50, December 31, 2015 (UTC) So are we good to go with this? --LauraCC (talk) 15:41, January 8, 2016 (UTC) :I'm not yet convinced on this. I think that it's more beneficial to break down by publisher, but a prime v alternate reality listing may work. I'm not totally certain of the value though. -- sulfur (talk) 15:43, January 8, 2016 (UTC)